Man Sues Casino After $500k Loss 'While Drunk

[BlakeBrown]

By this logic everybody drinking in a casino is basically on a freeroll If the consenting man won money the casino would not be on his ass for the money back this is pathetic if he wins this lawsuit
-I have a solution to end frivolous lawsuits: If you lose, you should have to pay the amount you sued for

 

[OzExorcist]

By this logic everybody drinking in a casino is basically on a freeroll If the consenting man won money the casino would not be on his ass for the money back this is pathetic if he wins this lawsuit

Not everyone, just those who are excessively drunk - and they're only on a freeroll if the casino does the wrong thing by continuing to let them play. If the casino does the right thing and cuts them off, nobody's freerolling anybody.

As stated above, the reason the casino wouldn't be "on his ass for the money back" if he won is because the player didn't break the law. The reason the player is suing the casino for his money back is because the casino very possibly did break the law. Big difference.

You can argue about whether or not the law should be on the books in the first place, but for as long as it is, he's got a case.

 

[wagon596]

Simple fix, ban alcohol and coffee, being serious what a crock.

 

[tazer]

Simple fix, ban alcohol and coffee, being serious what a crock.

I think everything would be more simple if everything was run by Texans.

Yes sir, No sir. No grey areas. I like the way you think bud.

 

[sam1chips]

Curious if he was "too drunk to remember anything" and had a black out, than how could he remember "Slurring during speach's, dropping chips on the floor", and everything else that happened, like which events he played?

I just don't understand, either he had connections in the casino (to a level, that he asked to see the video of himself), or something isn't really adding up.

From the article...:

The lawsuit stated: "Mr Johnston, an experienced gambler, was dropping chips on the floor, confusing chip colours and slurring his speech badly, and he was unable to read his cards or set his hands properly."

I'd assume the defense lawyer had access to cameras that were viewing him, that could probably see the guy dropping his chips everywhere (as well as how many drinks he was served)...

----

The article also says...:
The 52-year-old arrived drunk at the casino and was plied with free alcoholic drinks while he gambled

Does anybody know the answer to this question...is it illegal for the casino to allow drunk players to play? Or is it illegal for the casino to be serving drinks to an overly-intoxicated person and allowing him to play?

------

The article also said he lost $500k in 17 hours of gambling...was the guy blacked out for 17 hours?

On a side note, is there a distinction between "blacked out" and "excessively drunk"?

------

Also, I wonder if the guy is only suing for the $500k he lost, or if he is suing for emotional damages or something like that too. The article didn't seem to specify...

Just a couple questions I have, very interesting situation. I agree that he does have a decent case though!

 

[OzExorcist]

Does anybody know the answer to this question...is it illegal for the casino to allow drunk players to play? Or is it illegal for the casino to be serving drinks to an overly-intoxicated person and allowing him to play?

According to this http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=256

...the following acts or omissions may be determined to be unsuitable methods of operation:

2. Permitting persons who are visibly intoxicated to participate in gaming activity.
3. Complimentary service of intoxicating beverages in the casino area to persons who are visibly intoxicated.​

"Unsuitable methods of operation" doesn't sound like it's something all that bad, but here's what it actually means:

...willful or persistent use or toleration of methods of operation deemed unsuitable will constitute grounds for license revocation or other disciplinary action.​

If anyone can't be bothered looking at the source material, BTW, it's a 34-page document that sets out all sorts of conditions and procedures and whatever for operating a casino in Nevada.

The "things not to do list" is the very first thing covered by the document, and the lines about drunk patrons cited above are the second and third items on the list. Only "Failure to exercise discretion and sound judgment to prevent incidents which might reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the development of the industry" ranks higher. Read into that what you will about how serious an issue the licensing board thinks drunk players is... (and I'd think "getting embroiled in a lawsuit for letting a drunk guy gamble half a million bucks on credit" would very possibly qualify as an incident that might act as a detriment to the development of the industry anyway).

So the short answer is yes, it's a condition of the casino's licence that they don't allow visibly drunk patrons to gamble, or ply said visibly drunk patron with more booze.

 

[zEric7x]

While I suppose the man has a case I really don’t feel any sympathy for him. It is ironic to me that he is mad about losing while drunk because even if he was sober the games are designed for him to lose anyways. I suppose it does become an issue though of if the casino was taking advantage or not.

 

[shinedown.45]

Well here is something none of you have brought up yet.

If the man believes he should have been cut of and not allowed to gamble while intoxicated what if he woke up with $500K in profit instead of a $500K deficit do you think he'd be running back to return the money??? Not a chance.

He's an experienced gambler (addict IMO) and would had definitely given the money back.............gradually

"Johnston, a longtime gambler, acknowledges that he went on a drinking binge before he ever reached the casino floor." This tells me he WENT to the casino blacked out. And if it was a choice to GO to the casino while blacked out, that the casino is not at all responsible.

The casino served him alcohol which is against Nevada state law(mentioned above).

If he was playing on credit, what happens to the 500k he owes the casino?
Is he bound by law to pay the casino back?

 

[Four Dogs]

That's also the reason I think this is completely different to, say, the McDonalds coffee case. There may or may not have been some guideline somewhere that said that coffee above a certain temperature needed to have a warning label included on the cup.

I read something somewhere that McDonald's appealed the verdict and won and that she never received a penny.

 

[xXShannonAXx]

at the end of the day though no one held a gun to his head and said hey you gotta stay at the table and keep playing

how many of us have lost money playing online while having a few drinks are we all going to sue the poker sites we where playing on cause we where drunk i believe like other posters have said he will just lose more money on court fees if not and he does win this will just open up a big can of worms

 

[IPlay]

The replies in this thread make me lol. Especially the "if he won would he have to give it back!? SUCH BS!"

 

[samueldavis]

Damn Hahaha.thats how to be impulsive

 

[OzExorcist]

I read something somewhere that McDonald's appealed the verdict and won and that she never received a penny.

She won the initial trial, McDonalds said they were going to appeal, then the two parties reached an out of court settlement before the appeal was lodged.

What I read into that is that she did get paid, but it was an amount less than the $640,000 in damages that the judge prescribed at the end of the trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

at the end of the day though no one held a gun to his head and said hey you gotta stay at the table and keep playing

how many of us have lost money playing online while having a few drinks are we all going to sue the poker sites we where playing on cause we where drunk i believe like other posters have said he will just lose more money on court fees if not and he does win this will just open up a big can of worms

The obvious difference between playing drunk online and playing drunk in a casino is the site doesn't have any staff in your home to see if you're visibly drunk or not. It's unreasonable to expect an online poker site to be able to tell how much if anything you've had to drink.

It's not unreasonable, on the other hand, to expect a casino that has a floor crawling with real human staff to recognise and cut off someone who's falling down drunk.

And as mentioned above, a win for the guy in this case doesn't really open any cans of worms. The Nevada regulations already state that casinos aren't meant to let excessively drunk people play. A victory in this case is a victory for the status quo.

Casinos couldn't use the precedent to hurt players, because they can already kick them out / cut them off for pretty much any reason they like - they don't need to say somebody is too drunk to play to stop them from playing. And players can only use the precedent to hurt casinos (ie: by freerolling the house and claiming they were drunk and don't have to pay if they lose) if casinos do the wrong thing by not cutting them off.